The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal is an essential
building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of
knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors
and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and
embody the scientific method. It is therefore important to agree upon
standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of
publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher
and the society of society-owned or sponsored journals.
An important role of the publisher is support the extensive efforts of journal
editors, and the often unsung volunteer work undertaken by peer reviewers in
maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record. It is a tribute to
scholarly practice that the system works well and problems are comparatively
rare. The publisher has a supporting, investing and nurturing role in the
scholarly communication process and is also ultimately responsible for
ensuring that best practices are followed.
Elsevier takes its duties of guardianship over the scholarly record very
seriously. Our journal programs record "the minutes of science" and we
recognize our responsibilities as the keeper of those "minutes" in all our
policies, including the guidelines we have adopted to support editors,
reviewers and authors in performing their ethical duties.
We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial
revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. In addition,
Elsevier will assist in communications with other journals and/or publishers
where this is useful to editors. Finally, we are working closely with other
publishers and industry associations to set standards for best practices on
ethical matters, errors and retractions--and are prepared to provide
specialized legal review and counsel if necessary.
Duties of Editors
Publication decisions
The
Editor of a peer-reviewed journal is solely and independently responsible for
deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published,
often working in conjunction with the relevant society (for society-owned or
sponsored journals). The validation of the work in question and its importance
to researchers and readers must always underwrite such decisions. The Editor
may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained
by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel,
copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other
editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making this decision.
Fair
play
An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their
intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation,
religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the
authors.
Confidentiality
The editor
and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted
manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential
reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure
and Conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed
in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without
the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas
obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for
personal advantage. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a
co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to
review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts
of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships
or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions
connected to the papers.
Vigilance over published record
An
editor presented with convincing evidence that the substance or conclusions of
a published paper are erroneous should coordinate with the publisher (and/or
society) to promote the prompt publication of a correction, retraction,
expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant.
Involvement
and cooperation in investigations
An editor should take
reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented
concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the
publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the
author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the
respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further
communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies.
Duties of Reviewers
Contribution to
Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in
making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the
author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an
essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart
of the scientific method. Elsevier shares the view of many that all scholars
who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share
of reviewing.
Promptness
Any
selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a
manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify
the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Confidentiality
Any
manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.
They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the
editor.
Standards of Objectivity
Reviews
should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is
inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting
arguments.
Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers
should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the
authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been
previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer
should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or
overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published
paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure
and Conflict of Interest
Unpublished materials disclosed
in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research
without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or
ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for
personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they
have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other
relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or
institutions connected to the papers.
Duties of Authors
Reporting standards
Authors
of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work
performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying
data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain
sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the
work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical
behavior and are unacceptable.
Review and professional
publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial
‘opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.
Data
Access and Retention
Authors may be asked to provide the
raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be
prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM
Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be
prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
Originality
and Plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have
written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or
words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
Plagiarism
takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own
paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper
(without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by
others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior
and is unacceptable.
Multiple, Redundant or
Concurrent Publication
An author should not in general
publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one
journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than
one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is
unacceptable.
In general, an author should not submit for
consideration in another journal a previously published paper. Publication of
some kinds of articles (eg, clinical guidelines, translations) in more than
one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The
authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary
publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the
primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary
publication. Further detail on acceptable forms of secondary publication can
be found at www.icmje.org.
Acknowledgement
of Sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others
must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been
influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information
obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with
third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written
permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential
services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be
used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work
involved in these services.
Authorship of the Paper
Authorship
should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the
conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All
those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors.
Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of
the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
The
corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no
inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors
have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its
submission for publication.
Hazards and Human or
Animal Subjects
If the work involves chemicals,
procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use,
the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves
the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the
manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in
compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the
appropriate institutional committee(s) have approved them. Authors should
include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for
experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must
always be observed.
Disclosure and Conflicts of
Interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript
any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be
construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All
sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
Examples
of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include
employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony,
patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential
conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.
Fundamental
errors in published works
When an author discovers a
significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the
author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and
cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or
the publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains a
significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or
correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the
original paper.
